I don't believe it's Indy that's driving a wedge between people AT ALL. Scots are used to hard times, The ex prime minister of Pakistan said recently that Muslims are doing better in Scotland than in England.

Unionists will twist anything to favour their argument of Keeping Scots on their knees.

Stronger together, for whom. Not for Scots. or English living outside the M25 ring.
This isn't a battle between Scots and English people it's a conflict between Scots and Westminister elites.

English and Scots will be better of when their tax es aren't spent on Trident and illegal wars. Thats the Scottish independence dividend.

When this is all over and the dust has settled Scots and English will be the best of friends, importantly on an equal footing. no longer master and subserviant.

Finally, please, please, tell us how many unique views your articles got from both sides of the border. I think the stats would be very revealing... The subject has been trending for a week and reprinted and commented on, on many blogs.
I dont think I have every seen something as popular across such a range of people and blogs.

This movement has membership from all parties, united by a common cause!

Then there is the march for independence being organised..... People are energised to attend. Quite amazing really. The SNP couldn't have done as good a job as you did.http://www.independenceforscotland.com/

The penchant of Europeans of all kinds (and I consider the British Isles part of Europe) to carve themselves into ever smaller political units is a mystery to this American, but I do appreciate The Economist's sense of humour.

And we are glad that you found the article funny. It actually hurt many people in Scotland who are impoverished and struggling to pay their heating and fuel bills! (Not a problem that they have in London , where the article is produced!)

The main historical difference between Scotland and Ireland, is that Scottish Landowners still lived in Scotland and were Scottish, whilst Ireland's land was owned and managed in a model that was more colonial than feudal. The Irish were treated terribly throughout the victorian era and thus, like the Zionists, awarded their right to govern out of guilt and set entirely free. The Scottish, although the poor were still badly affected by Corn Laws, and clearances, were 'defecated on' by their 'own' ruling-class.

Decentralisation of government would work, all things being equal, but they are not so centralisation is needed to redistribute wealth. The grouping of people into a 'nation' is always so arbitrary. Culturally, Cornwall is as different to East Anglia than Aberdeenshire is to Yorkshire.

Hooray for the journalistic independence of the Economist. And well done for provoking serious interest in the economic side of the debate. Economics isn't everything - both the UK and Scotland will lost a great deal culturally by division. And already the effects of the unnecessarily prolong debate is having negative effects on Scottish society - a black acquaintance who has lived and worked in Scotland for some years recently commented that Scotland is going backwards in its inclusiveness because indy is driving a wedge between people.
I would love it if you did a fact checking article on the 'Seven key strengths of Scotland's economy' that is being circulated by the SNP at the moment.
Glasgow.

Perhaps, a more positive way to look at it, is that independence will remove the 'ever growing' wedge completely. We will hit the reset button and cooperate as equal partners. Actually, Scotland may set an example in political change management for the South.

I don't believe it's Indy that's driving a wedge between people AT ALL. Scots are used to hard times, The ex prime minister of Pakistan said recently that Muslims are doing better in Scotland than in England.

Unionists will twist anything to favour their argument of Keeping Scots on their knees.

Stronger together, for whom. Not for Scots. or English living outside the M25 ring.
This isn't a battle between Scots and English people it's a conflict between Scots and Westminister elites.

When this is all over and the dust has settled Scots and English will be the best of friends, importantly on an equal footing. no longer master and subserviant.

Please give me some examples of the ways in which Scots are 'subserviant' to the English? What do you mean by 'Keeping Scots on their knees'. I am Scottish and I live in Scotland and I simply don't recognise this way you describe life in Scotland.

Chris Carcus, Did you just make that up your statement is totally false at this moment in time you can't get moving in edinburgh for foreign tourist and Failte gu Alba to them Scotland wants to join the rest of the world as an independent nation which we can't do properly whilst tied to UK scotland is a welcomming and outgoing nation and the SNP has pulled the wool from the peoples eyes and we see our selves with new vision and hope for the future and we will succeed when we are cut free from the anchor of unionism thats dragging us down no more lies and deceit from a UK GOVERNMENT We are a rich nation in many ways and we will thrive and prosper post UK

One more thing regarding the oil I know people are sick listening about the oil. Only just recently on the BBC news Jackie Bird annouced an other eight new fields have come on stream and another20+ fields have been discovered now I know this from excoleagues in the oil industry before that news scotland was estimated to have £1.5 trillion in known reserves and there is more oil of Scotlands atlantic coast though lying in deeper water
Now saying this a previous labour government commisioned a report about the oil (the McCrone Report) which states Scotland is a very rich country so the government classified and made it TOP SECRET and it was only released under the freedom of information act years after it was produced they hid this from the scottish people and all the unionist politicians knew about including scottish politicians and said nothing about it they deceived us So how can the people of Scotland trust the union when they lied. cheated. and deceived us and another thing a lot of the english people think there is a hate campain against them there isn't a lot of scots have family in england and the rest of the UK but we just can't trust westminster any more and they are holding us back we need to break away from the UK to see our country thrive and prosper

What Scots want is a more Federal UK, like the US, Germany or Spain, and a less centralised economy. We would like much more fiscal independence so that we raise and spend more of our own taxes and take much more responsibility for our own economic decisions (and this should also appeal to critics of the Barnett formula). Unfortunately, Westminster is not remotely interested in creating a federal economy in the UK and this tension may well lead to an enhanced support for separation.

As I see it the best argument for Scottish independence would be the fact that UK elections are never won in Scotland (or Wales for that matter), which means the actions and views of the ruling party of the UK and the prime minister are going to be dictated by the politics of England, and more specifically the south of England. These views seem to be significantly to the right of the Scottish majority (as far as I can tell) and that in itself seems a worthy reason for independence.

You are factually incorrect. Margaret Thatcher won at least two terms largely thanks to the overrepresentation of Scotland in the Westminster Parliament. Pretty much everywhere outside Glasgow used to vote Conservative. Of course, her policies were aimed square at the area around London ("Essex man"). Maybe it was the sense of being taken for granted that led to the huge swing to Labour and then back again to the morally conservative SNP but that doesn't change the fact that Scotland used to decide the election.

Britain needs more devolution: parliaments with tax-raising powers for the regions and more autonomy for Scotland and Wales but I would stop short of full independence: foreign, defence and monetary policy are damned difficult to do on your own.

As long as you are hooting at underdogs, you might get your Berlin correspondent to do a story on Greuther Fürth, an eternally inept football team, which just made it into the Bundesliga. As an old Boston Red Sox fan (and inhabitant of Fürth), I know something about rooting for underdogs. Oh yes, and you should interview Henry Kissinger about Fürth (he's still a member of the club, and the Fürther are quite chuffed about that)
Stuart Jenks (1/8 Scots)

The Economist has not yet been able to find a value for emotions. That is really the failing of this article. And the consequence of failure of English inclusiveness.

Why, inspite of 300 years of a union do the Scots still feel hegemonized and have no sense of common purpose with the English inspite of major strides made on the behalf of the empire?

There are two lessons I can observe already: 1. Non-derivation in government revenue-sharing for a western nation as the UK should have been considered old-fashion donkey years ago 2. It is not possible to balance hegemony with earning the reputation of being fair/ civilized on the long( even a millenium's) run....

Putting this pseudo-map in such prominence on the cover under the heading "It'll cost You" just looks like propaganda. Apparently the article is more reasoned. I didn't find out because I chose not to buy the publication. Yes I have a sense of humour and I did smile briefly before I turned away.

I would love to know why Scottish independence is deemed only a Scottish matter and why only Scots are being offered a vote. Scotland is currently part of a United Kingdom, if that united Kingdom is to be split should not ALL its subjects have a vote on the matter, not just a small proportion of the total?

I think, in fact, Scottish independence would have little impact on the day-to-day lives of the good people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I'd suggest that elections in the US have greater influence on your life, so should you have a say on who the next President is?

The fact is, Scotland is a country, and it's up to those people living in Scotland to determine it's future - welcome to Democracy, a concept sadly lacking for too long in the UK.

Imagine it as a relationship between two (or more) people: everyone has the right to walk away. Therefore, it's perfectly fair to have a referendum in Scotland about leaving the rest of the UK, just as it would be fair to have a referendum in any other constituent part, or in a group of constituent parts where there seemed to be a political movement for them to split off together.
The only reason to do a referendum in the rest of the UK would be if there was a substantial movement throughout the rest of the UK to, as it were, split up with Scotland for some reason. The "throughout the rest of the UK" part would make this unlikely, however; it would be a rather more reasonable conjecture for a similar referendum to happen in either Wales, NI (as happened in 1973, although that was choosing between the UK and Ireland, not the UK and independence), or even England.

No the rest of the UK should not have a vote on scottish independence this is for the scots alone to decide if they want to remain a member of club uk.
On the other hand no one can stop England or Wales even Northern Ireland having a vote to stay or leave the UK club but this is a scottish decision to be taken by scots alone and no one else

Scotland vote for independence has nothing to do with england there are two kingdom in this union a principlaity and a province.
If any of the other three want a vote that's up to them it's nothing to do with scotland your vote is your business not ours.
But we will have our vote in or around 2012

Scotland vote for independence has nothing to do with england there are two kingdom in this union a principlaity and a province.
If any of the other three want a vote that's up to them it's nothing to do with scotland your vote is your business not ours.
But we will have our vote in or around 2012

1) It seems to be particularly easy for Scottish Nationalists to take offence at anything coming from an English source. I doubt they'd have got as angry with an American, German, Chinese, or other source which made a similar cartoon.

2) The fact that individual towns and cities were described brings it rather closer to home, making it more likely to hurt or offend, and thus yield an offended response. If they'd just gone with "Skintland" and dressed up a map of Scotland in rags and tatters, I doubt people would have been half so offended.

First, I'd like to thank you for a link you posted previously on the falklands (I don't recall having the opportunity to do so before).
Now to the point. Do you support the right of "self determination" when it comes to Scotland (as you do with much tinier Malvinas/falklands)? I think Scotland meets all the requirements to be considered a nation worthy of self determination.

Ah, crazed nationalists. Thumping their chest on about 'freedom' and 'English tyranny' as southern American yahoos might about their particular brand of Christianity.

We used to have a lot of those here in Canada, in the form of Quebec separatists. They drove the country into a verge of breakup twice, but never succeeded. They seem to be gone now, even if it seems a bit too premature to call them extinct just yet.

Just do your things right, Britain, and your SNP problems will go away as well. Right now they smell a weakness in the British brand, and that usually gets the malcontents to a frenzied high.

Since the WW2, separatist movements in the western world has operated exactly in the same way as a religious fundamentalist movement does, and trip themselves up in exactly the same fashion - through sheer pig-headedness that translate directly into ugly racism and xenophobia, which turns off the silent majority. And speaking of a silent majority, I'd advise unionists to be not discouraged, for if the seeming majority opinion of the Internet was the majority opinion of the society at large, then Ron Paul would be president of the United States by now.

Quebec is a poor example for two reasons:
1. Quebec, and indeed Canada itself for that matter, is a creation of empire, while the UK was created via an act of parliament. What is created by an act of parliament can be undone by a subsequent act of parliament.
2. Scotland has a constitutional basis that defines the sovereignty of the people and nation of Scotland. Quebec has no such status, and even Canada itself only achieved such sovereign distinction in 1982. Prior to that, its constitution was defined and amended via Westminster.
A better example would be if the US and Canada were to combine to form a United North America. If the sovereign people of Canada subsequently voted in favour of self-determination, would you label them separatists? Should those Canadians who achieved complete cessation from Westminster be considered separatists?
I suggest you educate yourself on Scotland's constitutional history before contributing to a debate already lacking in reasonable perspective.

When did you create your account, was it for this article? Curate's egg is entirely correct and your arguments are ntirely irrelevant. They are true but irrelevant. Act of Parliament or no, Scotland is very much like Quebec and I sincerely agree with Mr Egg that those who seek such disharmony will eventually melt away leaving Scotland on its UK path of prosperity.

You will find fairly few nationalists raving about 'English tyranny' and 'freedom'. Rather you will hear nationalists deplore Westminster elitism and talk of self determination. And I ask you, what's wrong with that?

Nations should be able to choose the form of government they desire. Scots have time and again chosen left of centre politicians yet are being ruled by a right wing government chosen by another country. To add to the farce Scottish ministers can vote on English matters that have nothing to do with them. We would have a far healthier relationship as independent nations, look at Scandinavia.

Now if you disagree with the existence of nation states on a fundamental level and wish for countries to merge until we gain a global government then I say good for you. I fully expect you to support the surrender of Canadian sovereignty to Washington in that case. However if your'e simply against Scottish independence because your'e worried about the ramifications for your own brand of what seems to be Canadian nationalism then I would kindly ask you to mind your own business and stop being an utter hypocrite!

As a Scot living in Canada I know both the Scottish and Quebec situations very well, and I can assure you that they are very different, for the reasons I stated and to which you bizarrely agreed and disagreed.

Scotland is a nation, Quebec is not. Scotland has a constitutional basis that defines the sovereignty of Scotland and the Scottish people, Quebec does not. The United Kingdom was formed by an act of parliament and can be easily undone via a subsequent act of parliament. Canada, including the province of Quebec, was formed by imperialist endeavours of Britain and France which are not so clear cut.

Again, I re-iterate my point that a better analogy would be if Canada and the US had formed a United North America and Canada subsequently sought to re-establish its independence. It would be entirely legitimate for it to do so, and to label as "separatists" those Canadians who sought to exercise their constitutional right to self-determination, would be entirely offensive in my opinion. This is the situation currently being played out in Scotland.

legal technicalities aren't the whole-shebang. It matters considerably how people feel that act of parliament or historical imperial union came about. Many Scots might remind you that the Scots Parliament was 'bought and sold with English gold' and that they were threatened with being economically cut off from England if they failed to join.

Legally, Quebec can vote to make itself independent, and if a 'clear majority on a clear question' say yes, it will be thus.

I think that, although Curate's Egg rather spoilt his point with silly insults, the analogy isn't quite as easily dismissed as you make out. The constitutional differences pose no definite obstacle to Quebec becoming independent; what poses the main obstacle is that the majority of people in Quebec don't want independence (and from what little idea I have of the situation, they would appear to have sound reasons for not wanting it).

And as for Separatist/Nationalist, the label used would depend entirely on where an individual is standing. Toh-may-toe toh-mah-toe, if you like.

Our current PM himself has acknowledged Quebec to be a nation quite recently. You say you live in Canada, but you lack knowledge about the facts about this country's highly diverse and fragmented nationalisms. Why should I have any faith in the validity of your other arguments?

Besides, the constitutional legalese that you base your arguments on is bunk; do you really think that nationalism is sustained by such scholastic mental gymnastics? What matters is how people feel about their 'nation' and its counterparts - Quebec speaks a different language from the rest of Canada, has a different religion, and has therefore been quite persecuted on this basis. Hence Quebec's understandable anger with the rest of Canada.

Scotland shares none of these features, and has in fact played an extremely prominent role in Britain's imperial adventures (some would say pillages), and then some more after Britain lost its empire (refer to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown). So what makes you think the majority of Scots even want to be independent, let alone deserve it?

And yes, I fully expect Canada to be merged with the United States in times to come, perhaps after we are all dead. And I actually wouldn't mind if the US had their house sorted out a bit.

PS. Scotland should be independent because it is generally left-wing, but the central government at Westminster is currently right-wing? If I remember correctly, didn't the British Cons form their government only 2 years ago? And I suppose your argument could form the basis for making ten countries out of a single city, wouldn't it?

To compare Scotland and Quebec is wrong. While Scotland has existed as a distinct nation for millennia, Canada and Quebec are largely the product of relatively recent immigration. While Scots exist in and of themselves, Canadians only exist in prefixed or hyphenated form. ie French-Canadian, Aboriginal-Canadian, Western-Canadian, Italian-Canadian etc.

"do you really think that nationalism is sustained by such scholastic mental gymnastics?"
There is nothing scholastic about it. Scotland and Quebec clearly carry very different definitions of the term "nation" and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
Scotland has been a sovereign state for many centuries, and remains a sovereign state. In Scotland, sovereignty is constitutionally defined as belonging to the people of Scotland, and they can therefore legitimately exercise their right to self-determination. They do not need the permission of Westminster to do so. This is even accepted by the most hardened Unionist.
In Canada however, there is no such definition of sovereignty in Quebec. In fact, it was prospect of Quebec independence that prompted the federal government to pursue Westminster for a full cessation of sovereignty in 1982, giving Canada (and not Quebec) such sovereign status. Stephen Harper may refer to Quebec as a nation all he likes, and I can sympathise with the concept of Quebec independence all I like, but that doesn't change the fact that Quebec and Scotland represent very different definitions of "nation".
PS. The Brit Cons have indeed been in government for only two years, but the Brit Labs before them were as right of centre as the Tories, despite what their manifesto might say.

"The part where a clear minority (according to every opinion poll) of Scots loudly proclaim it to all who will listen and then claim to speak for everyone. It would be that part."

Given the unionist bias of the mainstream metropolitan media, I am not surprised to learn that you are ill-informed. Every opinion poll that has presented the range of constitutional options (Status Quo, Devo Max, Independence) show that an overwhelming majority of Scots want AT LEAST fiscal independence.

And, given that Labour had a 15 point lead going into the 2011 Holyrood elections, isn't it good that we don't just base elections on opinion polls?

I can see that you are trying to reframe the argument in order to make it look like you didnt make a poor argument. Let me bring you back to topic.

1. You were talking about Independence, NOT devo max.
2. A clear majority of Scots do not want independence (regardless of whether they want more regional powers etc)*

A referendum asking a clear yes/no question will be good to clear the air and it will hopefully end the careers of many fundamentalist SNP politicians. Any further discussion on greater fiscal powers can then be negotiated separately as the PM has already offered (and Westminster is clearly willing to do as they did with devolution). This discussion should include oil revenues where control of revenue stream can be more closely linked with the Scottish budget.

*Nationalists like these three way polls because its the only way that they can somehow feel like it justifies their views. In reality Devo Max is very close to status quo and should legitimately be discussed separately to any independence question.

"What's the point of a political union if the two countries don't share a political ideology?" Surely then the North of England would want to join Scotland in breaking free from the conservative oppressors?

What is a nation anyway? Nationhood as a model worked for a few hundred years, but before that we were city-states, clans, and alliances and now we defer trade to the EU, and defence to the UN/NATO. Scotland, as a small country, would lose influence in world affairs that the UK has only for historical reasons.

Although Scotland was a 'country' it was a divided one, evident in the spread of Gaelic speakers today, and set around a monarchy that was tied with England & Norway.

Well said Scott. Too many faux intellectuals poking their noses in and opening mouths and letting belly rumble.

We don't have "an SNP problem" or a "crazed nationalists" problem. We have a problem with idiots for other regions and countries wading in with their own brand of self righteousness, to a debate that they clearly are ignorant about.

Back off idiots and stop interfering. Go fix your own problems. All you are doing is making matters worse.

curates egg) You are a bufoon do you honestly think that this is a fad that will disappear. If you do then sir you are a fool. The people of Scotland will be Independent on or just after 2012 the SNP have a woken the people to the injustice of this union which has past it's sell by date.
No other nation on this planet would send all it's wealth to another country and receive pocket money back to run and maintain it.
Scotand is being severly ripped off by the uk we don't have any democracy as the english population is 50 times the size of the scots and our voice is drowned by theirs.
Would Canada return to being directly ruled by the UK I doubt it so why would you expect the Scottish nation to do so.
Scotland has never given up her sovereignty and the act of union was forced on the scottish people by cohersion and bribery the scottish people rioted when they found out they did not want this union saor alba gu brath

I can't beleive this post didn't canada seek and get it's independence from the UK? Then why do you condemn others for seeking independence when your canada was in the same boat so to speak.
Their is no other country on this planet would send all it's wealth to another nation and receive a paltry allowance back to run our country.
I think your comment is insulting and of double standards would cannada or any other commonwealth country seek to return to UK rule the ansewer is no they were all better off after their independence

I recently saw a Tory poster from the 1979 referendum on establishing a Scottish Parliament, and chuckled at the predictions of poverty and destitution should Scots vote yes.
I look forward to my children similarly mocking The Economist in the not too distant future :)